I am opening up this topic for ideas and discussion of new Forum areas.
Some ideas:
1) Space humor (sigurd's idea) - I'll be glad to moderate 2) A science section, with explainations and discussion of the scientific basis of what we're talking about. Newton, quarks, black holes, etc. It'll help me, at least.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Oh, so that "Guest posting a message" stuff in the "Who is Online" section was Sigurd testing his new stuff...

I was wondering about that.

Hey you also talked about having a Gov't Space program section (or maybe a NASA section)?

No, the guest posting isn't me, and the feature is standard in phpbb.. but other forums don't have it configuered for safety and to avoid spamming.

A guest posting is possible, when someone clicks on reply or create new topic, but the get a message to login or register a new account.

Soon, I'm going to add some Government Space Forums, any suggestions ? The "new" news section on this site (and events and links arleady) will also have Government information.
While the current forums will be for private sector, new forums will be added for government, so everyone can be happy. And people will be able to see the government or private business news seperated, or using other filters to read the news to their needs.

I think a science section wouldn't be that a good idea since technology-related science should be discussed in the Technology section. But an Astronomy section or a Planetology section might be appropriate.

Hello, Sigurd,

waht about my former idea of a Missions&Trips section? Former and future Missions of AMSAT/MArs Society as well as of ESA, NASA, JAXA, Roskosmos and the chinese agency could be discussed there as well as personal spaceflight trips like those considered by Collins partially.

I think a science section wouldn't be that a good idea since technology-related science should be discussed in the Technology section. But an Astronomy section or a Planetology section might be appropriate.>>>>>What does this mean? |\/ Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

I meant a section where all subjects related to space could be learned and tought, from arithmatic to calculus tophysics to astronomy, etc. It would start small, and then grow.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

Interesting concept: tough to do, even tougher to do well, but definitely worth the effort. Y'all will have my support, at least, in this one, as I'm basically going to be learning it at the same time it's getting posted on the website.

How about using a Wiki for that section - or just link to Wikipedia? That way, we can make the most of the different areas of knowledge that we have, and create a good resource for space related information?

How about using a Wiki for that section - or just link to Wikipedia? That way, we can make the most of the different areas of knowledge that we have, and create a good resource for space related information?

It was already planned.
The glossary will be a wiki. Only the users who request to have explorers permission will be able to edit or add pages.

I think we need a government-oriented section to the news site -- Andy and both just started new threads in the Technology forum about government projects (one Italian, one Japanese) because there's no other place for the articles to be posted. Governments are great at research, and we need to have information from them here. We also need a new forum to discuss said news postings in.

I don't know that we need a science (think astronomy and physics) section to the news postings -- Space.com does an outstanding job of that already. No point in simply copying them. We're more interested in applying that astronomy and physics to get people into space as cheap and as often as possible.

Now, on the other hand, an educational part would be outstanding. Wikipedia wants to be the home of all human knowledge; why can't we be the home of all space transportation knowledge?

One thought might be to add a section to the site that consists of a database of space-oriented technical papers. Definitely a wiki section, and would have to be searchable. No reason we can't be a resource for professionals, and not just a hangout for "astronaut wannabes".

Of course, if all this takes off, Sigurd will have to find yet another server -- and a source of funding.

Governmental technology projects inclduing the italian and jepanese one always should be discussed in the Technology section.

I agree that there should be a section about NASA, ESA, JAXA, ROSKOSMOS etc. but in such a section only the agencies themselves should be discussed plus the space policies of the governments behind them (the space policy of the german government for example). Their bureaucracies, failures, successes, organization, partnerships and so on should be topics there - but not technologies or missions.

Missions and Trips should be discussed in a seperate section to simplify to find the threads again. I am already thinking about conents-stickies for the Spaceflight Cafe to list - among other threads - the threads about missions which from my point of view have no relation to the Technology section. Andy's and your's ones have this relation.

The "problem" is systematics. Up to now most humans tend to think of systematics as being linear or areal. Linear systematics is one-dimensional while arreal systematics is two-dimensional. But systematics is multidimesinonal and this is the reason inducing the discussion here.

"governmental" belongs to the dimension between the extremes "pure governmental" and "pure private". This one dimesion.

A second dimension is going from "suborbital" to "intergalactic" - this dimension shouldn't be applied here no way.

Another dimension extends from "single person" to "company" - which includes the team(s). This dimension is applied in this board.

I can identify several more dimensions but my focus here is the following: The Teams section as part of the single-person-company-dimension is restricted at this board by its cross-over-point with the pure-governmental-pure-private-dimension at the "private"-part of the pure-governmental-pure-private-dimension. In the Technology section on the other hand such a cross-over is not applied.

In the Spaceflight Cafe there are sme threads which I would move to a section about the governmental agencies and governments - but I never would move threads there which are Technology-related from my point of view - but I would move them from the governmental section to the Technology section.

So far some analytic hints here - they are relevant in practice and I had and have to handle them at my job. There is software-assitance for them in knowledge management systems as well as in Data Warehouses.

I think that you are trying to pigeon hole topics to much, I see nothing wrong with discussing a political aspect on a project in the technology section, if it comes up in conversation in a thread. I agree that it should not be allowed to take over the entire conversation but a short departure for a couple of posts shouldn't be a problem.

Threads mainly about political points should be kept separate but if relevant points have to be made in different sections then it becomes necessary to read a number of threads simultaneously and recombine them mentally rather than have the posts altogether which makes the conversation easier to follow.

IMO the above is true for most remarks that are off topic but have a bearing on what is being discussed. As long as the remark does not take over the thread it should be allowed, if people wish to discuss a particular point further they can always start a new thread.

_________________A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

I just wanted a spot on the news page for people to look for government-funded projects..........

Anyways, we also need either a separate section on the news page for op-ed pieces, or a way to show that something is an op-ed reply to something else -- like the HobbySpace article I just posted about Northrop-Grumman's space plans. I think the section (maybe just one of those little checkboxes) would work out better -- less coding involved, since you don't need a trackback to the original article.

The news section of our site will be rewritten more similar to http://www.tweakers.net also a page similar to BBC online news, and the option to see sections only (commercial, government news, or related to certain companies only).This is for in a few months.

About the forum:I agree we need more Government related forums.

Quote:

I don't know that we need a science (think astronomy and physics) section to the news postings -- Space.com does an outstanding job of that already. No point in simply copying them. We're more interested in applying that astronomy and physics to get people into space as cheap and as often as possible.

I think our technology section already includes most of it government and none government.

Quote:

Now, on the other hand, an educational part would be outstanding. Wikipedia wants to be the home of all human knowledge; why can't we be the home of all space transportation knowledge?

Do you mean an educational forum, or site section ?A "site section" for educaitonal purpose is already planned.We also have our own hosted wiki planned, with only certain members (explorers) able to update it. To create a "quality" (instead of every internet user able to update it) place to find space information.With more dynamic linking, allowing the data to be used, or referred to on other places on this site. (so a custimized, more advanced wiki).It will replace the glossary section.

The education section will be written differently with step by step information, for this we'll need people writing those parts, a lot of work.The system will also be able to ask random questions to test someone's knowledge about one of the available study molulesses.

Quote:

why can't we be the home of all space transportation knowledge?

I hope we will be one day , with as much as possible space information "easy to find" "easy to learn" and "easy to use/export".

Quote:

One thought might be to add a section to the site that consists of a database of space-oriented technical papers. Definitely a wiki section, and would have to be searchable. No reason we can't be a resource for professionals, and not just a hangout for "astronaut wannabes".

That's exactly why the wiki will be available.

Quote:

Of course, if all this takes off, Sigurd will have to find yet another server -- and a source of funding.

I can handle a THOUSAND times of more information, and a THOUSAND times of more visitors.. the advertisement pays for the hosting, so don't worry about funding

@Ekkehard Augustin

Quote:

Governmental technology projects inclduing the italian and jepanese one always should be discussed in the Technology section.

Certain freedom is acceptable, especially as example; when they talk about the funding of a technology project, instead of the technology itself.

Quote:

Missions and Trips should be discussed in a seperate section to simplify to find the threads again. I am already thinking about conents-stickies for the Spaceflight Cafe to list - among other threads - the threads about missions which from my point of view have no relation to the Technology section. Andy's and your's ones have this relation.

Please, wait with making new stickies for content oversight.In a few months, a special wiki page can be used to create A LOT easier oversight of all the available topics.The site is going to have still some major changes the coming months, in this case, it's just better to wait. Else you'll have to redo a lot of work.

Quote:

I agree that there should be a section about NASA, ESA, JAXA, ROSKOSMOS etc. but in such a section only the agencies themselves should be discussed plus the space policies of the governments behind them (the space policy of the german government for example). Their bureaucracies, failures, successes, organization, partnerships and so on should be topics there - but not technologies or missions.

That's one of the options for government forums.. I'll soon think about those forums and make a list of forums to add and let you and others share ideas, comments, etc.

@Andy Hill,

Quote:

IMO the above is true for most remarks that are off topic but have a bearing on what is being discussed. As long as the remark does not take over the thread it should be allowed, if people wish to discuss a particular point further they can always start a new thread.

I agree, Ekkehard don't try to create the forum "perfect" cause some freedom should stay. Not always all should be done in function of possible oversight.. cause certain features.. could else limit too much other possiblities, and not every sub question is worth a topic either.